Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within edit

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the worlds first photorealistic digitally animated film. I am aware the 'Themes' section is a bit thin for FAC, but it's the best I could do; the film was not well received critically, and while countless sources discuss the impact of the groundbreaking animation, I found very few sources that discussed the film's themes. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Freikorp, could you let us know whether or not this a Wikicup entry? The bot that used to highlight this is down, so we're on manual for the moment as far as checking goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ian Rose. I am participating in the cup for the first time, so I would like it to count (assuming it passes of course). Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ian Rose. I'm four for four with reviewers supporting the nomination. Is there anything this nomination still needs to be passed? Sorry to ask but i'm really keen to nominate another article i've been working on for FAC. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs an image review. I'd help there, but I'm pretty shaky on fair use rules since they're so ambiguous. Also, I'm not sure what the guidelines for passing have evolved into, but generally the coordinators are looking to see that the article was thoroughly vetted and not given drive-by supports. (In other words, although a certain number of supports are needed, the quality of the reviews also matters.) I'm guessing you're fine there. After that, the coordinators sweep through the entire list of nominations once or twice a week, promoting and archiving nominations as necessary. Following an image review, you'll just have to sit tight and wait like the rest of us. – Maky « talk » 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Maky edit

I loved this film and would be glad to review it. I, too, am working on getting an article like this one to FAC (pending GAN), and though I'm not an expert in the requirements for these articles, I'll review it to the level that I've taken my own anime articles. I don't think the minimal discussion of the film's themes is a problem. The articles I've written so far have suffered the same problem—everyone praising the animation but giving only shallow to non-existent discussion of the themes. As long as you have combed as many sources as possible, I feel you're fine there.

  • I don't think the cast section is needed. All but four of the voice actors are already discussed in the plot section. If you have a source for those four characters, I'd just note somewhere else in the article that they were also part of the voice cast.
I might wait for a second opinion on this one, if that's OK with you. Freikorp (talk)
That's fine, but read WP:FILMCAST. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sid finds the eighth spirit at the crater site of the alien asteroid's impact on Earth." This sentence seems out of place. I'd put it at the start of the next paragraph.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
I hope you don't mind, but I moved the second sentence back up to the previous paragraph since it pertained to another escape. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, I would clarify that there are two Gaia's, the alien and Earth versions.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I tweaked it a bit. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raised interesting questions" – It's not our place to judge questions as interesting or not.
This is the opinion of the source, not original research. Do you think it should still be removed? Freikorp (talk)
You're right—the article clearly says that the source states that. My bad. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was selected by Sakaguchi based on his decision" – sound redundant.
Removed. Freikorp (talk)
  • "blew out from" ... sounds a bit like slang.
Reworded. Freikorp (talk)
  • "extremely positive reviews" – trim the adverb
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Dan Goldwasser from Soundtrack.net also gave the film 4 out of 5" – the film or the soundtrack?
Soundtrack; my bad. Thanks for noticing. Freikorp (talk)
  • With Rotten Tomatoes, are we supposed to use "All critics" or "Top critics"? I honestly don't know... You might want to check to be sure.
I've seen 'all critics' cited the most, though i've noted that some articles will also cite the top critics in addition to this. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I'm not sure myself. I'll just leave this one open and see what other reviewers think. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) See: MOS:FILM#Critical response and MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess this one is taken care of now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in particular if the presence of her unconsciousness in the film..." – I'm not sure I understand what is meant here.
I didn't add that text to the article, and searching through the eBook preview oddly doesn't even get any matches for 'Final Fantasy': [2]. I'm not 100% sure what it's implying either, though my best guess is it's implying a 'cartoon' character would appear more human if she was seen to be vulnerable. As I can't confirm this, and as I'm now questioning whether this information appears in the book at all, i'm just going to remove all of it. Freikorp (talk)
Good move. I would strongly recommend verifying any information you did not add to the article before you submit to FAC... if possible. This raises questions about what else might not have been checked. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for saying that. In my defence, here is the version of the article before my first edit [3]. I have added almost all the information to the article since then, and also successfully nominated it for GA. The only thing that isn't really mine is a sufficient chunk of what is now in the 'Reception of Aki Ross' sub-section, so that's what I haven't checked. I'll make an effort to check it now. It was well written and referenced so I accepted it in good faith. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've since checked all the sources in that sub-section. All of them check out, with the possible exception of the last one, Action and Adventure Cinema. Google preview [4] shows that 'Aki Ross' does indeed appear in the book (though it's unclear as to where) , but i'm not getting any hits for the direct quotes "into an erotic fantasy machine" or "least overtly eroticised". The eBook is $35, more than i'd like to spend. You're thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The preview Google gave me and what the preview search on Amazon turned up was limited due to bad OCR. On Google, I read 3 brief mentions of Aki and one about the role of the military and the counsel, but nothing confirmed what is cited. Admittedly, one or more pages were omitted from that part of the book's preview. Using WorldCat, can you request a copy through your local library? – Maky « talk » 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My local library said that only universities held a copy of the book. While public libraries charge $5 for inter-library loans, university libraries charge $21.50. As it was only an extra $14 to have my own permanent copy of the book, I took the plunge and bought it. At first I thought the information wasn't in the book; there is definitely something wrong with the books character recognition, but manually searching the book after one successful recognition of the name 'Aki' found the information is indeed there. I reworded the information a bit based on the source. Freikorp (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know the page numbers, do you mind doing the Sfn thing for this source as well? After that, I'll strike this issue. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surprisingly for a film loosely based on a video game series, there were never any plans for a game adaptation of the film itself." – How about "atypical" or something with less emotion.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • If The Making of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had so much information about the film, why is it only cited once in the article? Same with the "Making Of" featurette.
The book wasn't as helpful as I thought it would be; most of the pages were just pretty pictures. There were an awful lot of detailed biographies of not only the characters but also weapons/vehicles etc used in the film, which weren't useful to me. I only got access to the book after i'd finished writing the article, when the production section was already sufficient. I'm sure I could pull something else out of the book if I tried, I just didn't feel a need to. The only information the book had that the article was lacking in was the 'themes' information, which I promptly added to the article. I haven't seen the making of featurette, as I only own the iTunes copy of the film. I haven't felt the need to get a copy of it for the same reasons. Freikorp (talk)
I own the DVD and can watch the featurette for you. However, if there is information there that needs to be added, I can't really add it if I'm going to support this article. At least I can tell you whether or not it's worth getting your hands on. I'll get back to you. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched the featurette, and I do recommend getting a copy of it for inclusion in the article for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although there are large chunks of trivial and superficial information, there are important bits, such as the origin of Aki's name, discussion of the Gaia theme, how the production progressed, and key issues faced at each stage in production. – Maky « talk » 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know, but this will take me a few days. I live in a small town; my local video store says their copy is missing, and the library doesn't have a copy either. I've just ordered a copy off eBay for $5.59 (so happy DVD's aren't worth anything anymore lol), now I just have to wait for it turn up. I should have it by next Wednesday. Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maky: Just an update to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. The ebay seller I purchased the DVD off only marked it as 'posted' today, so I expect to get it by mid next week now. Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten either. I figured shipping might take a bit. Sorry, but if I had the software to rip and encode the featurette I would have just sent it to you. – Maky « talk » 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maky: I got the film and added info from both the 'Making of' featurette and also the 'Matte Art Exploration' featurette. Have a look and let me know what you think. I'm not sure if the information regarding Sakaguchi's mother best belongs in 'Themes' or 'Production'. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information looks good, and I tweaked the placement and wording of the mention of his mother. I hope it's okay. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about how much the DVD was able to recover financially?
I haven't been able to find any. If anybody else can i'd be happy to add information on this, i'd certainly be very interested to know how much it made. Freikorp (talk)
  • The last sentence of the lead should be incorporated in the body (with its references).
Thanks for spotting this. I added the information to the 'Legacy and related media' section. Freikorp (talk)
You might also note the "box-office bomb" in the "Critical reception" section.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is information in the infobox that is not mentioned and cited in the body of the article.
I assume you were referring to the premiere - I added that to the release section. Just in case anyone was wondering, WP:RSN indicates the source I found is acceptable: See here. Freikorp (talk)
I was talking about the "Produced by", "Screenplay by", "Cinematography", "Editing", "Distributed by", and the release date for the premiere. They are not given in the body nor cited. Some of it can be cited to the film itself if you can verify it in the credits. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I cited some of this information to the book The Making of Final Fantasy. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Edited by" with "Christopher S. Capp" is not cited. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited information about him in the home media section (he features on one of the DVD's audio commentary tracks). Is this sufficient? Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help maintain this article after FAC is done, I strongly recommend archiving your web refs with WebCite. The Cite web template has parameters for storing the archive url and archive date.
Done. I didn't archive the World Soundtrack Awards reference as the archived version didn't allow the pop-up window to view the cited information. I also didn't archive Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic, as information may change slightly in the future, and they are both established sites unlikely to shut-down anyway. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last part of the discussion of Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams in the Themes section—particularly this: "and also by the animation software and the electricity powering the computers that were running the software"—left me scratching my head. Have you verified this source?
Yes, that was all written by me. I own the source (Kindle format). I thought the author was making a bit of a leap with that sentence as well, but I was desperate for 'Themes' comments, so I added it in. Source reads: "The aliens are not exactly dead people but spectres of long-deceased creatures. They are (re)animated by several kinds of forces: by the energy of the red Gaia; by the human spiritual, bio-etheric energy; by the animation software used to create them; and, quite literally, by the electricity feeding the computer workstations where the ghostly invaders were born." Feel free to reword as you see fit. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you focus on the "reanimation" aspect (bringing these specters back to life in the film), there's no need to dive into that "animation" aspect that the author is trying to draw a parallel with. If anything, it creates confusion. I think I'm just going to delete that latter part for clarity. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, good job so far. – Maky « talk » 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Maky. I've replied to all your concerns, please let me know if anything requires further detail or clarification. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maky. With the exception of the DVD featurette (which i'm still waiting for in the mail), the film cast (which i'm leaving in until I get one more opinion, I don't disagree that it's not necessarily needed, but it isn't hurting anything and I know IP's are just going to constantly add it back if I remove it) and the archive URL advice (which is a good idea, and I may get to it later, but it isn't a requirement to pass FAC) i've addressed all concerns again. If you could provide strikethroughs or comments to let me know how i'm going that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. It's been a busy week. I've struck some more points and left some responses. Don't worry about IP edits—let's see what other reviewers say, and if they agree that it's redundant and unnecessary, then revert anyone who adds it back. I'll be waiting for the additional info from the new source and will give my support then. The article is looking really good. And please don't forget to archive the web refs. ;-) No, it's not required for FAC (though it should be, IMO), but it will help prevent this article from making its way back to FAR. I won't strike that point until it's done, but I'm not going to withhold support until then either. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the refs, see above. I'm very much hoping this DVD turns up tomorrow lol. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent job on the article! For the future, though, please try to cover all the sources (meeting the comprehensiveness requirement) before submitting to FAC. Otherwise the handling of the other various issues is pretty much par for the course. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by I JethroBT edit

Oh boy, I remember having a very chilly reception to this movie when I saw it during its theatrical release. Anyway, let's get on with the source review:

Minor stuff
  • Consider using Ucucha's script for referencing errors, albeit there are only two related ones which appear in this article. The Tasker (2004) citation doesn't point to anything in particular, when it looks like it should point to the source in the bibliography under O'Day (2004). Looks like it's just an issue of the authorship being in the wrong spot in one place or another.
Fixed the O'Day/Tasker author problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ruth La Ferla (2001) citation reads, "pp. 9–1." Is this supposed to be "pp. 9–10"?
Hmm, it's actually supposed to be 1–2, not sure what happened there. Fixed in any case. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher field for citations like Template:Cite book read, Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). This means you can probably nix the New York Times Company in the Ruth La Ferla citation.
Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More involved stuff
  • Are pages numbers or a specific chapter title available for the multiple citations for the Bolton et al. (2007) publication?
I've now added the chapter name. Unfortunately I only have the kindle version of the book, which does not have page numbers. If there is a way to reference a specific area in a kindle book I am unaware of how to do so. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chapter title will be sufficient. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Time Magazine article seems to be behind a subscription paywall. Can any claims that it currently supports can be verified through an existing or different source?
When I first added that source to the article a subscription was not required to read it. I'm fairly certain I won't be able to find an alternate source for the last 3 of the 4 inline citations it is used for, thought the first one (use of motion capture) should be easy to find a replacement for. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I figured it was situation like that. Articles behind subscription walls can definitely be used, but their use should be minimized as much as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found an existing source used in the article that backs up the motion capture usage, and added that as an additional inline citation. Freikorp (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sources to consider incorporating
Interestingly this last source is the same text that appears in chapter 10 of the Bolton et al. (2007) book. Same author and text, just published under a different title. Freikorp (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I can provide these sources if you cannot access them for any reason.)
In general, the sources look decent at a cursory glance, but I'll do a more through review later today or tomorrow. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: Just wondering if you're still able to provide a more thorough review, as i'm fairly sure this article only needs one more 'support'. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Right, sorry. I will be finishing up with the sources tomorrow, thanks for the reminder. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Finished with the source check-- current sources in the article look solid, and I did not see any OR or other issues with regard to phrasing in the article compared the source. Any impression of that interview with Cortina in the source above? Seems like it could be used to expand the character modelling section a bit more, which afterall, the film in known for. Once I hear back from you on it, I can consider supporting this for FA. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I added some new information from that source regarding the software programs used to create the characters. This information was really helpful, thanks. Other than that though, I don't think there's any further information in this book that can be used. Freikorp (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Looks good. Glad the source was helpful. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the addressed revisions and improvements regarding sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero edit

Done. Never worked on a video-game inspired film before so I didn't know I could put it under the project. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done some copyediting, mainly in the lead; feel free to revert.
Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "render farm" - possibly jargon
It's wikilnked to an article of the same name that clearly explains what it is, so I don't see a problem, though I am more than happy to accept suggestions for alternate wording. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capable of killing humans by physical contact" - how? By venomous stinging cells like jellyfish, by sharp blades like rays, or with something supernatural? The talk of infection implies the first - unless that's different from how they kill?
Clarified that "physical contact with a Phantom separates a living creature from their Gaia spirit, killing them instantly". Feel free to reword. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "barrier city"?
Clarified. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "Dr. Sid" or "Doctor Sid"?
Consistently formatted as "Doctor", this is what appears in the credits. Freikorp (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is revealed that Gray was once romantically involved with Aki." - Is this important to the plot at this point? If not, you might consider mentioning it earlier or just leaving it out.
I suppose it's not important to mention in order to understand the film, though it does play as a sub-plot throughout the film,and this is its first appearance, so i'd rather give it a brief mention than leave it out unless that's going to be a problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the leadership council" - what leadership council?
I don't think it's specified, it's just referred to as the leadership council, and implied it is the leadership of what remains of humanity. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "delays the use of it by revealing that she has been infected and the collected spirit signatures are keeping her infection stable" - haven't seen the movie so perhaps there's context I'm missing, but how would this delay an attack on the Gaia?
Clarified this revelation convinces the council there may be an alternate way to defeating the Phantoms than the Zeus cannon. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This revelation convinces Hein that she is being controlled by the Phantoms." - Correctly? Does the infection also include mind control?
Specify incorrectly. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her dream reveals" - only to the audience, or to Sid?
Aki realises it herself (and accordingly the audience becomes aware); i've stated she becomes aware of it. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which form of English are you using for the article? The lack of Oxford commas and the date ordering suggests British, but then there are constructions like "authorization".
I write in British English, though I may have missed a couple American English words. I've fixed this one and will look for more. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be back with more of a review later. Tezero (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During her development, he altered the model to appear more intelligent looking, shortening the hair, and removing makeup from" - ambiguous; were the hair shortening and makeup removal part of his attempt to make her more intelligent-looking (should contain a hyphen, by the way) or separate entries in a list?
Reworded to clarify. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Matrix setting" - link to the article of the franchise, the first film, or Animatrix
Done (franchise). Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much to studio president Jun Aida's lament" - not sure this is relevant; can you detail why he was upset about this or why it's otherwise significant?
Removed, it's probably not surprisingly they were unhappy about retiring a character they had put so much effort into. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acknowledged as a technological tour-de-force" - possibly non-neutral; should probably move to Reception anyway
Reworded to simply say it was well received. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John DiMaggio as BFW soldier #1" - seems unusually specific for a Wikipedia film cast list - was this soldier especially significant?
No. I think someone just added that because DiMaggio is a regular voice actor for the video games. Removed. Maky actual suggested removing the entire cast section as per WP:FILMCAST. What are your thoughts on this? Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see how those guidelines would support removing it, though I guess I wouldn't object to its culling. Tezero (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is mostly redundant since the majority of the cast are discussed elsewhere in the article. For the remaining three cast members, there is no citation to support their mention, either here or in the infobox. – Maky « talk » 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does there need to be a citation? Isn't that information, like the plot, implicitly covered by the work itself? Or is this under the expectation that if they're not covered by a secondary source, they're probably not worth mentioning? (If the latter, while I think this argument tends to be overused in situations when articles aren't really comprehensible without certain primary-sourced information, I'd understand it more here.) Tezero (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'm used to working with film articles where the original work gives credits in kanji... so I never know if people are going to object since they can't read it to verify. But the redundancy is still a minor issue. The last three cast members could easily be added to a relevant section of the article, negating the need for a "Cast" section. It's not a *huge* deal though. – Maky « talk » 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; can't see anything else disagreeable about the page, so it's time for a vote. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK edit

  • File:Ffmaxim_aki_ross.jpg - needs a slight reduction, the general limit is 100,000 pixels.
  • File:Elliot_Goldenthal_-_Final_Fantasy_-_The_Phantom_Plains.ogg - FUR is OK, but the sample needs to be shortened, the general limit is the shorter value of ("30sec" or "10 percent of original length"). Exceptions are possible, but the soundtrack's "atmosphere" can easily be conveyed by the sample's first part (the original length is mentioned as "1:42").
  • Fair-use rationales for all 3 images are OK, the first image for identification, the other 2 significantly increasing the reader's understanding and with detailed coverage of their content within the article itself. Time for a disclaimer: the term "significant" is a relative term with varying interpretations - it's entirely possible, that someone else will disagree here. If this happens, a discussion at WP:non-free content review will need to find a consensus.

See WP:NFC for more details about minimal usage of non-free media. GermanJoe (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Done. Image and track both reduced. Track is a couple seconds over the 10% length, but I thought it was appropriate to hear the entire bar of music (it played the whole bar on my computer but after uploading and listening on wikipedia it seems to have cut it half a second short, never mind). Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, no worries over single seconds :). We should just be in a reasonable range of this guideline. GermanJoe (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within/archive1&oldid=1136097862"